Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2016, 01:55:16 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 670
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Clinton apologize for her e-mails? on: August 21, 2016, 10:47:11 am
She already did, and if she did again, those who dislike her still wouldn't care.

The same goes for Donald Trump.

Hillary doesn't need to say she's sorry.  She's sorry, all right, but not repentant.  She's the sorriest Democratic nominee in my lifetime.

What she needs to do is to start being truthful, religiously.  Either that, or state that the public record is what it is, and folks can decide from it whether or not they want to vote for her.  Her apologies mean nothing to anyone because she lacks the basic integrity and sincerity that most human beings are endowed with.

Sloppiness is not the same as lacking integrity and sincerity. I'll admit that she was sloppy in having the e-mail system she shouldn't have, and sloppy in making statements about her system after the fact, which led to false statements, and she deserves to be pilloried for this. But no where was there any evidence of any conspiracy to conceal anything from public scrutiny; hide the existence of her e-mail system; or hide any particular e-mail(s); let alone on any substantive matters. Now that over 30,000 have been released to the public, there are no bombshells in them. And the result has been that Hillary's record is now more transparent than most public figures ever to run for office, including Obama. If over 30,000 of Donald Trump's e-mails were released, I have little doubt that they would be far more embarrassing and damaging to him.

As for her sincerity? Look at her substantive actions, not her words. Look at how those actions line up across 10, 20, 30 and 40 years. Look at her record. In other words, look at things that can't be conjured up with a stage-managed, well-delivered speech, which affect people's lives. Look at the things that can't be faked. The record shows she's been a fighter for many of the same causes her whole life- health care access, children's rights, legal aid to the poor, and a plethora of other populist causes. She's been consistent on this substantive issues her whole life, and taken actions to advance these causes. As she is today. Those should be the big issues she's judged on, as those would be the big issues affecting how she leads this country in a manner that affects people.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Clinton apologize for her e-mails? on: August 20, 2016, 11:53:48 pm
Considering the fact that she was found to have lied about the emails and what kind of information was transmitted to her voters, she should at least apologize for lying to the American people.

Not that it would personally get me to support her, but it's one of many legitimate reasons people have for not supporting her.

Well, her argument was that she was using a shorthand that accurately described about 29,997 of the 30,000 e-mails. She should have said, "To the best of my ability, no classified e-mails were sent or received, but of course, with thirty thousand pieces of correspondence, many of which were not sent by me, I can't guarantee it's a hundred percent. But applies to every effort by every official to keep classified information secure. No one is perfect, whether online or offline."

That would have been accurate. It would have also made for a wonderful headline attacking Clinton. At the end of the day, her real mistake was having a private e-mail system in the first place. Once that decision was made, everything else that has come out since them was basically fait accompli.

But I don't think it's absurd to take into account the fact that, at the time, Clinton wasn't he only one who had no problem with a private e-mail system. Powell has admitted advising her to do it, and he even bragged about using webmail in his book, which came out in 2012. And hundreds of senior government officials e-mailed with Clinton on her personal domain, and none of them raised any flags. They all thought it was okay, basically. Which doesn't make it okay, but it was a collective failure among senior officials, not some uniquely different way of thinking that Clinton had, that was special to her.
28  General Politics / Individual Politics / Trump is one of the reasons why I didn't support Obama in the '08 on: August 20, 2016, 11:32:43 pm
primaries. I knew that it would exacerbate racial polarization. When you have Democrats nominating a black man when Democrats are already getting 90% of the black vote, and then have him be the face of the party for 8 years, it's playing with fire. This is not an attack on Obama. It's not his fault he's black, obviously. It's just a commentary on political dynamics. During the Obama years you had increasing racial polarization by party, and now it's opened up the door for someone like Trump, who has the backing and uses memes from racist groups that were once considered fringe. Prior to Obama, the GOP was diversifying... you had them start to run candidates like Michael Steele in 2006, who was a relatively high-profile candidate; and from the statistics, the share of black delegates to the GOP convention peaked in 2004.

My ideal would have been for the first minority president, particularly a black, to be a Republican. With a black as the face of conservatism for four to eight years, the racists would have been banished from the GOP, and race would have been removed as a polarizing factor in American politics, as much as it could have been. In a way, conservatism represents the American's Americanism, the heartland ideology, and if that could have been represented by someone black, it would have been even more transformational than just having a black president.

Basically what has happened is what I feared. And this goes for Clinton to, to a lesser extent. We've now had two nominees in a row in the Democrats, where the winner of the white vote in the primaries didn't get the nomination. The black bloc vote is a problem because, when you have 20% of the primary electorate going 90% for one candidate, any other candidate needs to win by landslide proportions just to stay competitive. So blacks have just enough pull to decide Democratic primaries, but the actual swing group in the Democratic party, whites, have less pull. The result is the Alabamization of America, or at least forces pushing in that direction.

That's why I'm going to strongly support the Sanders' calls post-primary for open primaries, rather than closed, in the future. That goes for all levels of government. We need more whites and other non party dedicates deciding our primaries. Those loosely attached to the party having more sway would be better in General Elections.
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 20, 2016, 08:09:28 pm
Well I don't disagree that a strong desire to break the glass ceiling helped Clinton clear the field other than Sanders, and that was probably a silly tendency by the Democrats. Still, in that's with 2014 or 2008 as a starting point... I'd still argue that if you look at Hillary's statistical chances at birth in 1947, as the daughter of a middle class Chicago family, of becoming president, it would be somewhat lower than Trump's chances, as the son of a wealthy real estate developer.
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Trump start winning if he starts running on on: August 20, 2016, 07:07:28 pm
He doesn't need to run as a Democrat. He just needs to run as a centrist moderate/populist as he is doing now in the general election.

Supporting a higher minimum wage would be a good idea though and would cement his image as a populist.

So two centrist/moderate populists running against one another?
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Should Clinton apologize for her e-mails? on: August 20, 2016, 06:55:28 pm
I was looking at the polls in 2015, and she got a noticeable bump when she apologized, at that time. She should apologize again, and say that she understands that people want a candidate who has their trust, and she hasn't done that enough, and vow to do a better job. In a way it would be better for her to be down in the polls because it'd prod her to take these steps.
32  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Do you support open borders? on: August 20, 2016, 06:32:56 pm
No, D ( sane ).
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 20, 2016, 06:28:41 pm
Carole Moseley Braun in '04?
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Will Trump start winning if he starts running on on: August 20, 2016, 06:24:37 pm
paid family leave, amnesty for undocumented immigrants, higher minimum wage, etc.?

Basically it will be Democrat vs. Democrat.
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders Returning to Campaign Trail for Clinton on: August 20, 2016, 06:23:20 pm
I am pumped at the idea of Clinton as President with Sanders chairing the Budget Committee and Sherrod Brown chairing the Banking Committee.
Wake up

What makes you think that won't happen?

Well for one thing, it's a fairly close election. I'd love to see it happen, too.
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 20, 2016, 06:18:33 pm
She was a woman in 2008, and the DNC didn't clear the field for her. In fact, I distinctly remember Kerry and Kennedy both endorsing Obama, and senior Senate Dems urging Obama to run back in 2006.

IMO, she got more than enough votes in 2008 to earn her a party nomination, and that's why the field was cleared for her. It was her behavior and good character on display in 2008 that made her popular with party leaders (just as it has for all the people she's worked with throughout her life), not her gender.

In 2008 it was considered "acceptable" for Obama to run because he would also break a glass ceiling, and some establishment folk probably thought the black glass ceiling was the easier glass ceiling to break. Edwards, as the former VP nominee, would have received less shunning than the typical opposition candidate, and with no one holding a 30 point lead like Clinton did when Biden said he wasn't running in 2016, probably felt he had a notable chance of winning. The rest of the field is oddly parallel to this year - Richardson is the basic equivalent of O'Malley (although without the stain of being succeeded by a republican at the time; Richardson was still governor), and the rest were Chafee/Webb, not necessarily ideologically, but in terms of strength as a candidate.

Yeah, but if you think being a woman is sufficient for the DNC to clear the field for you, none of that should have mattered.
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders Returning to Campaign Trail for Clinton on: August 20, 2016, 05:55:50 pm
Bernie Sanders is proving to be a great FF.
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it? on: August 20, 2016, 05:52:52 pm
She was a woman in 2008, and the DNC didn't clear the field for her. In fact, I distinctly remember Kerry and Kennedy both endorsing Obama, and senior Senate Dems urging Obama to run back in 2006.

IMO, she got more than enough votes in 2008 to earn her a party nomination, and that's why the field was cleared for her. It was her behavior and good character on display in 2008 that made her popular with party leaders (just as it has for all the people she's worked with throughout her life), not her gender.
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gawker shutting down on: August 18, 2016, 10:29:00 pm
I haven't been following this too closely, but what exactly did Gawker do that was illegal? They certainly didn't smear him if they only published factual information, no matter how embarassing. Unless they sent someone over to bug his house or plant a recorder in his apartment, they must have stolen the tape? Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky was illegal under Maryland law... That doesn't mean Drudge deserved to be shut down for publishing it.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does anyone feel that Trump is the only person in the election? on: August 18, 2016, 08:49:02 pm
I point out areas of legitimate concern. FYI, at the time of this posting, on the front page of Atlas, excluding my own post, there were 17 mention of "Trump" to 3 of "Clinton." So you can't deny my point is true. Trump may be an idiot in every other area, even business -- but he is a master showman and media manipulator. He knows how to throw out red meat. The Apprentice didn't become such a long-running show for nothing. A media personality like him competing against politicians is like a shark being thrown into a pool of guppies.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Does anyone feel that Trump is the only person in the election? on: August 18, 2016, 08:16:39 pm
You never hear about Hillary Clinton. It's always Trump, Trump, Trump. He's given like 3 major speeches in the past 3 weeks that were heavily covered. Clinton?Nothing. She has no space to get her message out. Pretty soon she's going to have to start threatening to moon everybody. So who's running against the media again They're going to get the guy elected just like they did in the primaries.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why is Clinton polling so low? on: August 15, 2016, 09:00:10 pm
Polarization doesn't explain why Obama got in the low 50s against Romney and Hillary is polling in the mid 40s. Their political positions are very similar, what they would do in office would probably be similar, their political coalitions should be similar. Yet if Obama were running, somehow I suspect he'd be leading by more.
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Why is Clinton polling so low? on: August 15, 2016, 08:42:44 pm
By most accounts Trump has run a very bad GE campaign. Yet Hillary is barely ahead of him. Why is this? I haven't heard of any major gaffes or mistakes made by her campaign. She should be ahead by about 20 points.
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants on: August 15, 2016, 04:38:58 pm
Immigrants are already more liberal on social issues than native Americans, if how we vote is any indication. If we really wanted them to assimilate, we should test them for social conservatism. The problem with this test is that, any opinion will be suspect. I'm glad I immigrated here when there was no such test, so I can say my socially liberal views are as genuine and unselfish as those of any native born American.
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / A conservative activist's chilling comments about truth and the election. on: August 14, 2016, 06:02:42 pm
Quote
Let's say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it's a falsehood. The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that: 'By the way, you know its false.'

And they'll say, Why?: 'I saw it on Allen B. West.' Or they'll say: 'I saw it on a Facebook page.'

And I say, The New York Times did a fact check.

And they'll say, 'Oh, that's The New York Times. That's bullsh**t.'

There's nobody--you can't go to anybody and say, 'Look, here are the facts.' And I have to say that's one of the disorienting realities of this political year. You can be in this alternative media reality and there's no way to break through it. And I swim up stream because if I don't say these things from some of these websites, then suddenly I have sold out. Then they'll ask what's wrong with me for not repeating these stories that I know not to be true.

When this is all over, we have to go back. There's got to be a reckoning on all this. We've created this monster.

And took, I'm a conservative talk show host. All conservative hosts have basically established their brand as being contrasted to the mainstream media. So we have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media. And by the way, a lot of it has been justifiable. There is real bias. But, at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there. And I am feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping the whirlwind at that.

And I have to look in the mirror and ask myself, 'To what extent did I contribute?' be honest, the bias of the mainstream media has been a staple for every conservative talk show host, every conservative pundit for as long as I can remember. Going way back into the 1960s with William F. Buckley...

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/08/live-from-the-republicans-self-made-gehenna-wisconsin-wingnut-charles-sykes-notices-that-he-and-his-fellows-have-create.html

Here are his books.
46  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Hillary under pressure to renominate Garland if she wins on: August 14, 2016, 05:59:27 pm
Yeah, I have no problem with Garland being renominated. It would be a dick move to nominate the guy, and then pull him. He's obviously qualified.
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico: Youngstown, Ohio could flip to Trump on: August 01, 2016, 10:00:59 pm
I don't think she can afford to completely give up on it. It usually gives D's a 25 point margin. She needs to emphasize her anti-TPP stance, and revive her call for a trade timeout from her 2008 campaign when she said NAFTA didn't deliver on its promises, and highlight her anti-trade voting record in the Senate.
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Politico: Youngstown, Ohio could flip to Trump on: August 01, 2016, 09:56:28 pm
Quote
But Mark Munroe, the GOP chairman of Mahoning County, home to heavily white, economically struggling — and traditionally Democratic — Youngstown, said Republican voter registration has “more than doubled” in the county, which gave Trump more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary. The Democratic voter registration advantage over Republican registration in the county has shrunk to only about 6,000, he said, a figure county election officials confirmed.

“Those Democratic voters and unaffiliated voters who made a point to cross over for Trump [in the primary], yeah, I think they’ll be there in the general election,” he said. “If they would go to the trouble to change party registration, get involved, I’ve got to think they’re going to be likely supporters in the fall.”

Republicans are now openly predicting that Mahoning County, which gave President Barack Obama 63 percent of the vote in 2012, will flip this year for Trump, saying his tough anti-trade talk resonates in a part of the state that has seen factories close and jobs relocate.

Youngstown, Ohio could flip to Trump

McCain and Romney got 5,000-6,000 votes in their respective primaries. Trump got 17,000 votes. Clinton got 50,000 votes in Mahoning in 2008; only 21,000 this time. Other eastern Ohio counties could be similar.

Can Clinton shore up this traditionally Democratic stronghold?
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: That didn't take long... Trump leaks top-secret intel on: July 30, 2016, 12:43:46 am
By the way, the reason Trump may have had Saudi Arabia on his mind is because in the last day he has been trading attacks with a Saudi Prince, who burned him on how he had to bail Trump out a couple of times.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/29/donald-trump-saudi-prince/

So again this might be another case where his thin-skin made him lash out.  

The other disturbing part is how he tried to smear Megyn Kelly, undoubtedly for asking him tough questions.
50  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Mass murder of disabled people in Japan on: July 29, 2016, 10:58:53 pm
I don't get it. They don't have either guns or Muslims in Japan. This can't be happening!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 670


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines